When I’m not writing this blog, my full time job is as a university academic and that job involves research. Research is tested when it is published in peer reviewed papers and conferences. Although they have taken some time to appear, two papers that I wrote with my colleague Professor Stephen Dovers have now appeared and may be of interest. They are:
- Michael Eburn and Stephen Dovers ‘Legal Aspects of Risk Management in Australia’ (2014) 4(1) Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management 61-72; DOI10.5595/idrim.2014.0076; and
- Michael Eburn and Stephen Dovers, ‘Learning lessons from disasters: alternatives to Royal Commissions and other quasi-judicial inquiries‘, (2015) Australian Journal of Public Administration (Online); DOI: 10.1111/1467-8500.12115.
Both papers are on the related theme of how better to learn from disasters. In the first one we argue that one of the risks the emergency services are managing is the risk of being blamed after a disaster. Focusing on that risk detracts from actually helping the community. We argue that avoiding the temptation to ‘blame’ would go a long way to improving community safety. In the second paper we give some arguments why the Royal Commission model of post event inquiry is not the best way to identify lessons from catastrophic events. We suggest some alternatives which are the subject of our ongoing work with the support of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC.
These papers seem particularly relevant with the release of another inquiry, this time the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into the 2013 Wambelong (or Warrumbungle National Park) fire. I haven’t yet finished reading the report but already it appears to be pointing the finger of blame at the NPWS over their management of the park and the early response to the fire; again using the knowledge that this fire became a destructive mega fire to judge decisions that had to be made in minutes and when the actual outcome was just one of many possible outcomes.
Australian Emergency Law 
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your papers, will look forward to reading.
The Wambelong inquiry finding makes for thought provoking reading.
Whilst I note you have not completed reading it, I think you touched on the issue of blame being proportioned based on a mega fire and the very small time frame available to make big decisions. Whilst I agree with that notion, I feel that this particular fire inquiry dealt with evidence detailing a distinct lack of decision making over many hours prior to the fire becoming out of control.
Blame is never the best outcome I agree, but responsibility and accountability to community and taxpayer of the Government decision maker should be rightfully scrutinised. Blame (liability) is often needed to sort out legal claims as a result of the fire.
Thanks for your comments and blog
Regards
Rob
Rob, blame is indeed required to resolve legal claims; a party is only liable to compensate another if they are at fault, or blameworthy. It should be noted that post fire litigation is rare except in the case of these mega fires. Whilst cases have settled, so far none that have run have found the emergency services or agencies like NPWS liable. Whether this will be the exception remains to be seen. There may be better ways to do it however, and that is what we hope to suggest in these papers and our ongoing work.